The ConDem coalition claims the savage austerity being imposed on Britain will make the country fairer.

Chancellor George Osborne said the rich would bear the brunt of eye-watering £40billion spending cuts and tax rises when he unveiled his emergency Budget.

Since then he has repeatedly insisted the package is "progressive" in a bid to wrong-foot critics and calm his Liberal Democrat partners.

But experts warn the poorest and most vulnerable are set to be hit the hardest by the most brutal cuts since the Second World War.

And experience around the world shows that when governments slash spending on services it is those already struggling that suffer most.

Sweden and Canada blazed a trail for the ConDems by taking an axe to spending to cut debt in the mid-90s.

The Chancellor and Lib Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg have pointed to their example when trying to justify the "fiscal consolidation" the coalition says is needed to get the UK back in the black.

But the wealth gap widened in both countries at the time, say experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Sweden, along with Finland, suffered a 12% increase in the gap between rich and poor, the steepest among major economic powers.

Author Herwig Immervoll said: "It is difficult to carry out major fiscal consolidation without driving up inequality significantly."

Hard-up families here face a triple whammy of tax rises, benefit cuts and loss of public services. Mr Osborne's decision to hike VAT to 20% disproportionately hits the poorest because the sales levy takes more of their income than from the rich.

Save the Children has calculated some of the poorest families will end up shelling out £1,600 a year in VAT alone when the increase comes in.

Hard-working families, OAPs, the poor and kids will be hit as the Chancellor tries to wring £13billion out of the social security budget.

Housing benefit will be slashed by about £2billion, the same amount raised from a tax on fat cat bankers who caused the financial crisis.

Free school meals for children from half a million low income families have been binned along with help for expectant mums.

The pension age is rising in a blow to poorer people who don't live as long and now the winter fuel allowance is in coalition sights despite David Cameron's promise that it would be protected.

Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioner's Convention, expects it to be cut from £400 to £300 for over-80s and £250 to £200 for other pensioner households.

He warned: "The people hit hardest will be the oldest and they are the section who need to keep warm the most. It is an attack on older poor people. The handful of wealthy pensioners may be able to afford it but for the poor this could be the difference between life and death."

The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies warned at the time of Mr Osborne's Budget that the tax rises and benefit cuts would hit the poorest hardest.

Now an even grimmer picture has emerged as experts look at wider measures of inequality, which take in to account the impact on public services.

Poor families rely more than the rich on government-funded health, education and transport so cutting them widens the wealth gap.

Looming cuts to bus subsidies, for example, will hit those who can't afford a car the most.

The stark difference this makes was set out in the OECD study.

Health, education and other services are the equivalent of 62% of disposable income for the poorest fifth of families but only 8% for the top 20%.

Sally Copley, of Save the Children, said: "The poorest families need good public services like health, education and childcare the most. Reduce spending on these - they're going to be hit hardest. Mums on low incomes have already borne the brunt.

"The very poorest didn't create the financial crisis -and should not pay the price for clearing it up."

Professor John Hills, of the London School of Economics, says the cash Labour poured into health, education and other services stemmed the rise in inequality.

The poorest 10% of society saw real income rise twice as quickly during the party's first 10 years in power, according to his research. He found households in the bottom fifth had twice as much spent on them by government as the top 20%.

Prof Hills calculates that slashing spending by £1,000 per household a year, just a third of what is proposed, cuts the income of the poorest by 10% and 1% for the richest.

Across the board tax rises would be much fairer as they would cost the wealthy 3.7% of their income while the poor would pay just 3.4% more.

He added: "It is very hard for cuts to be 'progressive'. The choice between general tax rises and general spending cuts has huge effects.

"It is hard to see how one can make huge spending cuts and still describe the Budget as progressive."

And the Child Poverty Action group said the coalition's decision to balance the books by cutting £4 for every £1 they raise through tax increases means much bigger cuts.

Spokesman Tim Nichols urged it to reconsider the ratio and said ministers must stop big business and the rich wriggling out of paying tax. He added: "We've heard David Cameron talk a great deal about benefit fraud but Britain has a much bigger problem with tax avoidance.

"The National Audit Office says £40billion is lost through avoidance, evasion and the black market at a conservative estimate. A proper strategy for tackling that would alleviate spending cuts on services that have a very negative impact on poorer families."

£40BN Estimated annual amount lost to tax avoidance, evasion and the black market